Charles Taylor Verdict: Competing Perspectives and Perceptions

Former Liberian President Charles Taylor’s long awaited verdict was delivered on 26 April 2012. The trial represents an important milestone in the sphere of international criminal justice.

Published on 27 April 2012 in ISS Today

Uyo Salifu, Researcher, International Crime in Africa Programme, Transnational Threats and International Crimes Division, ISS Pretoria

The long wait for judgment in the case against former Liberian President Charles Taylor is over. All eyes were fixed on the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) today, Thursday 26, April 2012, for the anticipated ruling. Today, after six years of trial and legal wrangling, the accused was found guilty of charges of 11 counts of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. The charges were for Taylor’s role in the Sierra Leonean civil war from 1991 to 2002. The crimes included murder, rape, terrorism, pillage, sexual enslavement and recruiting children to actively participate in hostilities. Taylor’s case differed slightly from other high-profile cases in the sphere of international criminal justice, due to the fact that it is the highest profile case to be filed at the SCSL. For security reasons, Taylor’s trial was transferred from Sierra Leone to The Hague. The SCSL was created at the request of the government of Sierra Leone. It is also the outcome of a joint collaboration between Sierra Leone and the United Nations (UN). These and other details of the case have had an impact on the perception of the trial among Sierra Leoneans, Liberians and the international community.

Taylor was indicted on the basis of his involvement, as mastermind, in the war crimes committed by Revolutionary Union Front (RUF) mercenaries during the Sierra Leonean war. Taylor was found to have acted with Foday Sankoh of the RUF in sustaining civil war in Sierra Leone by equipping the fighters with weapons in exchange for diamonds. An estimated 200 000 people are said to have died as a result of the war. The case against Taylor hinged on the Prosecutor’s argument that, despite the fact that Taylor never travelled to Sierra Leone, he had a vested interest in supporting the Sierra Leonean war and that he was in communication with the rebels who committed the grievous acts. Taylor’s defence counter argued that numerous Liberians were involved in the war for personal gain but none of them were acting under the influence of the accused. The defence also believed that the accusations levelled against the former President were politically motivated to keep Taylor out of power.

Sierra Leoneans and Liberians differ on their views of the Taylor verdict. In Sierra Leone, there is generally a mood of jubilation. Victims of the crimes, including those amputated, maimed or those who lost a family member, welcome the guilty verdict. However, there were also indications that some Sierra Leoneans were more eager to put the atrocities of the war behind them than to be reminded of the horrors of the past. In Liberia, mixed signals were being received, as the Liberian government had maintained that it was keen to have a ‘fair outcome’ for Taylor, as a citizen of Liberia. The people of Liberia, however, indicated their interest in having Taylor tried for his atrocities against Liberians during his tenure as President.

More so, Sierra Leoneans are not completely in favour of the manner in which the trial was conducted. Sierra Leoneans and Liberians alike, for instance, have expressed concern that the trial was not held on West African soil. Despite the fact that it was the SCSL and not the International Criminal Court (ICC) that conducted the Taylor trial, Sierra Leoneans and Liberians have expressed dissatisfaction that the trial was conducted at the ICC’s premises in The Hague. The transfer to The Hague has had an impact on the way Taylor’s trial has been viewed by Sierra Leoneans and Liberians. As such, in spite of the fact that Taylor has been found guilty, the venue of Taylor’s trial takes away an aspect of the peoples’ ownership of the trial. Another view held by Liberians and Sierra Leoneans concerning the location of the trial is that Taylor was far removed from the scene of his atrocities. Should Taylor be sentenced to jail in the United Kingdom, this same view is likely to be prominent.

The international community appeared to have stronger views regarding the outcome of the trial than the people of Sierra Leone or Liberia. For instance, a guilty verdict was expected to be championed by actors within the international criminal justice sphere due in large part to the need to end impunity in Africa and elsewhere. A not guilty verdict would therefore have been a crucial blow against the campaign to end the ‘big man impunity’, which is perceived to be prevalent among the ruling elite in various African states. However, critics of international criminal justice’s approach to Africa will view Taylor’s guilty verdict as another example of the West’s vendetta against Africa’s sovereignty. The view is built on the premise that cases brought to the realm of international criminal justice are mainly from the African continent. Taylor’s guilty verdict is likely to be viewed in this regard because the SCSL is not devoid of Western influence due to the input from the United Nations.

Allies of former President Taylor view the guilty verdict as an attack against Taylor’s political ambitions. African leaders who hold pessimistic views of the agenda of international criminal justice are also expected to view the verdict with disdain. African leaders who have been indicted by the ICC, such as Ivory Coast’s former President Laurent Gbagbo, will be particularly concerned about the outcome of their own upcoming trials.

The guilty verdict was expected, as the defence did not provide compelling evidence and instead relied on a politically based argument. Needless to say, it is expected that the guilty verdict will be appealed by Taylor’s defence. If however, his appeal is rejected, the former President will be sentenced and expected to serve his sentence in a British prison. The onus will then rest on the judges of the Appeals Chamber to either reaffirm or overturn the judgment. The subsequent outcome will be considered final.

The Taylor verdict will have a number of important implications for international criminal justice. The verdict is the first of its kind. Taylor has become the first ex-President since the Nuremberg trials to undergo judgment. Karl Doenitz, a naval commander who was Adolf Hitler`s brief successor in Germany, was the first to stand judgment in this capacity. The Taylor verdict is furthermore proof of the tenacity of international rule of law. This will signify a better functioning international judicial system, which critics have often accused of being incompetent of international criminal justice. For Africa in particular, this is a monumental verdict because the continent has grappled with the challenge of prosecuting powerful individuals. It is expected that the verdict will contribute to the future of peace, security and justice, in that African leaders, many of whom have often acted with impunity, will have to rethink their actions. In addition, because Taylor’s trial was conducted by the SCSL, the verdict signifies an important milestone in the efforts of Africans to achieve justice.